For the first time in several years, the version of the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that just passed the Senate does not contain any major reforms to limit bid protests.

But the bill the Senate sent to the conference committee process does contain two provisions aimed at bid protests. Although they are minor, they portend and may lay the groundwork for future attempts to change the protest process.

Both provisions call for further study of issues addressed in the RAND Corporation’s January 2018 bid protest report.

This past March marked the beginning of a more fulsome required debriefing process for defense contracts.

The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) issued a class deviation memorandum, effective March 22, 2008, requiring contracting officers to: (1) provide unsuccessful offerors an opportunity to submit additional questions within two days after receiving a debriefing; and (2) hold the debriefing open until the agency delivers written responses. The class deviation implements Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (NDAA).

Federal agencies have long been required to debrief unsuccessful bidders after it awards a contract on the “basis of a competitive proposals.” And the existing FAR provisions applicable to such debriefings, FAR 15.505 and 15.506, already require agencies to include, as part of the debriefing process, “reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures were followed . . . .”

In practice, however, agencies regularly ignore that requirement — often providing a limited written debriefing, declaring the debriefing closed with no opportunity for questions, and thereby putting the disappointed offeror on a 5-day clock to protest, without all the information to which it is entitled.

In a new rule announced May 1, the FAR Council implemented prior statutory changes to GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction.

For task orders issued by the Department of Defense, NASA, or the Coast Guard, the rule provides that GAO will have jurisdiction only over task orders “valued in excess of $25 million.”

For civilian agencies, GAO continues to have jurisdiction over protests of task orders “valued in excess of $10 million.” The rule also permanently repeals a pre-existing FAR clause that had set a September 30, 2016 expiration date on the ability to protest civilian agency task orders.

The new rule — codified as FAR 16.505(a)(10) — implements Section 835 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which directed the FAR Council to establish the new DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard threshold. (The sunset date for protests of civilian agency task orders had previously been repealed by the GAO Civilian Task and Delivery Order Protest Authority Act of 2016.) According to the FAR Council, its new rule is designed to “follow[] the statute exactly.”

EPDS is very functional and easy to use. If you’ve ever clicked a link, selected an option from a drop-down menu, and uploaded a document to a website, you’d have no problems using the system. But even if you did run into trouble, GAO has published a comprehensive user guide and videos that thoroughly explain how to use the system.

Upon logging in, the user’s dashboard displays a list of each protest it has pending before GAO. This list provides basic information about the protest—GAO’s docket number (or “B-number”), identification of the protester and agency, filing date, next due date, and case status. From this page, users can also file a new protest (once that feature is active upon EPDS’s formal roll-out) or intervene in a protest that’s currently pending.